At this point I can only refer you back to the original vote, and my responses here.
I don’t think that focusing on the wrong thing proves they are brain washing people to hate white people even if I take that resolution broadly. It’s a non sequitor. The issues con raised indicates there is some legitimate grievance which renders your argument that they brainwash people because they focus on one legitimate grievance over more important issues (of which you mentioned several).
While the argument “they should be protesting xxx” or “its not the biggest problem” may be valid points - theyre not the resolution and proving one doesn’t prove the other.
I can really do more than I already have to explain why that’s the case, the example I gave in the vote, and below with charities are key examples that illustrate the logical error. If that still doesn’t make it clear why you didn’t show the resolution, I don’t think there’s much more I can say.
The logic is the same, for the same reasons. In both cases you can’t attribute malefeasance to the fact that one group doesn’t prioritize seemingly higher priority problems.
“Even if I buy” is voter speak - in this case it means that if I accept your arguments as true on its face - it doesn’t prove the resolution.
Specifically, the reason I said this was covered in my decision: if there are other more urgent or pressing issues faced by Blacks - this would show BLM is at best misguided, and focusing on the wrong issue: it doesn’t become an issue of “brain washing”, or teaching bias against whites unless you show malicious and deliberate intent.
It’s a bit like animal charities. A charity for taking in stray dogs and raising awareness of animal cruelty may not be the most pressing issue faced by humanity: but listing statistics about human starvation and the effects of war would not prove that the charity was brainwashing and biased against humans. The logic in these two cases are much the same.
While I very much appreciate the defence on a personal level: I think it’s important that everyone is free to ask questions and feel comfortable challenging decisions they feel are unfair - after all if I am not willing to defend decisions, I shouldnt be making them.
As a moderator I am expected and deserve an extra level of scrutiny; and I am happy to explain all my decisions in detail if necessary.
As I outlined in the decision the only thing wrong with Dr.Franklins vote is that he appears refers to another voters RfD in Leiu of justifying the conduct point he awarded. This is expressly prohibited by the CoC.
As a vote moderator, decisions are made not on the content or validity of the vote in question - but whether the voters adhere to a specific set of criteria spelled out in the CoC voting rules.
As a voter, I review the arguments made as they pertain to the resolution. In the case here I disagree with the validity of your logic as I think even if I accepted most of what you said as true - it wouldn’t prove the resolution, and so you didn’t uphold your side.
I believe your objection is explained by the following part of my vote:
“Even if I buy every specific thing pro says, he presents no evidence BLM brainwashes people to hate whites. At the very best, pros case is that BLM protesting police brutality and systemic racism is misguided, which falls way short of the rhetorical bar he set for himself.
Con correctly points out that the majority of these statistics raised are irrelevant; I side with him, though I think he could have elaborated on why better than he did.
It seems illogical to object to the validity of BLM protesting one particular type of injustice simply because there are more substantial matters at stake - this is prima facia absurd: For example, if I was punched in the face, and lost my job: it would be valid for me to be angry about both: as just because I object in public about one doesn’t mean I am disinterested about the other. Without pro doing more here, I cannot accept these branches of arguments.”
The last paragraph is most specifically addressing your concern - with an example.
BLM “brainwashing people into hating whites” is an extreme resolution.
If BLM is misguided and is protesting the wrong aspects - it does not automatically mean that they are brain washing people into hating whites. One can be true without the other - and this is the key issue that PRO missed in the debate - effectively arguing around the resolution.
In the same way, arguing that Anti Malaria charities should focus efforts on improving sanitation and access to water doesn’t mean those charities are inherently dishonest or “brainwashing”, and it’s thay distinction pro missed; and was required to affirm.
Next round rebuttals were the same shit.Con responds-”Can't be helped. Parental issues has nothing to do with BLM. I think your white privilege card declined.”
Doesn’t address the facts nor backs up claims of white privilege. Another problem with Con is that he tries to paint Pro as using his “white privilege” but only uses on incident to back up his claim.
Pro responds:”I posted a study conducted by Harvard University and Urban Institute that showed nearly half of the black students drop out whereas only 7 to 8% of whites do so. Is that personal choice or white privilege? If it is white privilege,explain how. Oh,sorry,sorry,as you said in the comments,it's because the sky is blue. I get it. My bad.” Facts and Logic
Con also cherry-picked situations, such as the two cases and what-if situations.
Arguments-Pro
Sources-Tie
S&P-Tie
Conduct-Pro wins, Con used poor conduct as politely outlined by his vote,including
" You just want to pull out your white privilege card. "
" No, MLK was not a racist, but you are. "
" Again with the "what-if" scenarios. Nobody has time for that crap."
" Stop acting like you've never ever cussed in your life, bitch"
" Oh shut up you are the one with loose morals and loss of character "
1.Black Lives Matter doesn’t address main black issues
I have grouped Cons arguments
1.BLM’s true purpose is as he explains:”it's a pro black movement. We aren't saying that black lives are more meaningful than everyone else's, we are saying black lives are just as meaningful as everyone else's. The BLM movement isn't about separation, segregation or disengagement. The BLM movement is about a positive resolution.”
Both sides made strong claims with facts and evidence. The deciding factor will be the rebuttals.
Case 1: Black issues in communities-King claims-”"dropping out of high school" and "growing up without a father" are stereotypes and simply irrelevant. Has nothing to do with BLM..”
Where Pro responds-”Black Lives Matter only cares BLACK LIVES LOST BY COP ACTION,NOT OTHER BLACK LIVES.” Pro is able to back it up with facts and sources like-”The issue of white fathers leaving their parents is unaddressed because it happens the least out of Blacks,Hispanics and whites. As of today,the rate of black fathers leaving their kids is 48.5%,those of Hispanics 26.3% and those of whites 18.3%. (US Census Bureau, “Living Arrangements of Children Under 18”: Tables –CH-2, CH-3, CH-4. 1960 – Present. U.S. Census Bureau July 1, 2012.)”and “The above link show studies conducted by Harvard University and Urban Institute which shows nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2002 failed to complete their education. Just 57% of African Americans and 60% of Latinos graduated in 2002, compared with 78% of whites and 84% of Asians. Now,this is just for only one state. One can only imagine about the rest of the country. People don't talk about whites on this issue,because of "white privilege". They don't because whites don't drop out of schools at the abysmal rate as blacks.”
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for conduct and arguments
>Reason for Decision: See above
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments are sufficient.
Voters may not reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes. The voter appears to reference an existing vote for conduct points instead of placing an independent justification for conduct.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PinkFreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The Conduct award is judged to be border line; borderline votes are considered sufficient.
************************************************************************
But if people aren’t prevented from changing their gender, then what’s to stop people demanding that theIr age shouldn’t be changed each year. Everyone would start off with the age they are born with, and it should never be changed
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DarthVader1 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: “The conduct point goes to Con since Pro forfeited not just one but two rounds.
The spelling and grammar was both reasonably good for both participants.
The sources were also convincing for both sides.
Pro's arguments were not impressive. I was particularly confused at the ballot tossing. Can he prove that the ballots tossed out all belonged to a specific group,or were just randomly thrown out?”
>Reason for Mod Action: First and foremost, the voter is illegible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. When they have done these things, they will regain the eligibility to vote.
Conduct is sufficient, but argument points are insufficiently justified.
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: “I would like to start off by thanking both opponents for this debate
POOR CONDUCT
Pro has FF 2 of the 4 rounds, that's poor conduct.
I'd like for other voters to also consider this when voting as well.”
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct is sufficient, but argument points are insufficiently justified.
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: kitty_slay_dragons // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and S&G
>Reason for Decision: Pro had better grammar, sources and spelling.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is insufficient on all three counts; as well as the voter being ineligible to vote (the voter must have 2 non troll debates or 100 posts in order to vote)
The voter insufficiently justifies argument, sources, and grammar points. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps. To award sources points, even where one side did not use sources, the voter must (1) explain how the side which did use them used them well (how the sources impacted the debate), (2) directly evaluate at least one source from the debate, and (3) state that one side did not use sources (comparison). The voter completes just one of these steps. Finally, to award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G. The voter completes just one of these steps.
What is important to understand here is that my vote moderation isn’t assessing the accuracy of the vote or whether it is “correct”, but whether it meets a set of predefined criteria. I can’t judge the vote based on whether it is a correct vote or not - if we did that, then the winners of the debate would likely be down whoever the vote moderators decide it is, which is not a good idea.
In terms of debate rules, while we consider the rules - for example if someone made a rule and a voter placed a vote referencing that rule, (ie “rules say forfeit means a loss of arguments), we take that into account; but we don’t typically enforce the rules (IE: we won’t remove votes that are deemed insufficient as per the rules posted in the debate definition).
In this case, I believe the voter meets the overall voting criteria both in terms of general precedent and the CoC- I could have called the argument points borderline also, but felt that they were just about sufficient- but felt that conduct was borderline.
While I completely understand the frustration, I believe the issues you raise fall under the issues of accuracy and whether the vote is correct, rather than whether it is sufficient: and unfortunately that is not the purpose of the moderation - and not something I can make a decision on.
There are a couple of things you can do here: you can ask Omar about the vote (though be respectful) - he may have missed these issues: and I have seen voters change their mind when they realize they have made a mistake.
Second, you can post the debate in the DebateArt forum “debate voting” thread to request more votes, which may very well counter the effect of one vote you think is bad.
Finally, you can most certainly appeal to Bsh1 or Virtuoso by tagging them in your response. I recognize that I am imperfect and capable of making mistakes - one of the other vote moderators may come to a different conclusion than me on this, or hold a different view. It’s worthwhile highlighting the area of the CoC voting standards you feel weren’t met by the vote.
The debate is unwinnable if the rules you’ve stated are enforced.
I reject the premise that it’s okay to create an unwinnable debate, for the purposes of scamming free points from someone who doesn’t read the fine print well enough to realize.
If your not willing to earn a win by offering good arguments; and simply by asserting arbitrary rules: then you should willing to eat a loss when those rules are rejected.
If the debate has deliberately selected rules to make it unwinnable - it’s not a debate. As a voter I don’t accept or enforce rules that would prevent one side from winning before an argument has been posted. If your opponent makes an interesting semantic argument, I would accept it provided its good.
(see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/525 for some interesting precedents)
I personally prefer flexible and open styles of debate, with rebuttals, summaries and no new arguments being presented in the final round; but if you want to have summary only in the final round, I will be happy with that too.
This shows you have now done it twice but this time added a straw-man.
Though the rebuttal was not perfect since PRO refuted more than was necessary, they still refuted the argument CON made on gay marriage.
CON repeated what they said initially and brought nothing new to the table, making their response irrelevant.
That right there is enough to show that PRO had the upperhand arguments wise since the title of the debate is: Omar thinks I have political beliefs based on religion: NAME ONE
Conduct wise CON made an ad hominem fallacy by calling PRO's argument on morality "a half-hearted argument" followed by repeating their morality standpoint rather than respond to the argument PRO made. PRO clearly demonstrated that in their subsequent round that CON made an ad hom to avoid refuting PRO's argument
>"Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion."
In terms of arguments, based on all I have read, I believe PRO has provided ample evidence that CON has political views based on religion. It seems very strange that CON rejects this since CON themselves say they are religious. PRO simply had to point out that CON had religious beliefs that they were serious about and PRO did it. CON rebutted by pointing out how their religious belief and their political were different
> "The government should not get into marriage. Stay out of it. If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine with me.
>As a Christian, however, I am against it.
Then CON goes on to say
>NOTE: I am not homophobic."
The last two statements are obvious contradictions. More importantly, CON's political views align with their religious ones. CON is still against same sex marriage politically however they hate the government more than two gay people getting married(This can be deduced directly from what they say in the three above statements above)
PRO refuted that argument by saying > I specifically targeted Civil Unions because that was part of my argument. You instead remove that as something you need to rebut and add your own argument. Basically making a straw-man of me so that it suits you. This is not how you debate. I was given the burden to show how Religion is the basis of your beliefs and used civil unions. Not gay marriage. For you to simply add your own argument as if that is allowed makes it seem like that you are unable to rebut my argument and will do anything to change the argument I made in order to suit yourself. For this reason I will not be rebutting his straw-man of my position instead await him to rebut my civil union claims. This debate was about me showing something. Not you changing what I was showing so it is easier for you to comment on. It is not about what you prefer. It is about you rebutting my claims. Since you did not do that with my first argument.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 1 point for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: see above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The argument point is borderline - thus sufficient.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
While the voter specifics some instances of misconduct; there was not an explanation of how this misconduct was excessive, nor was there a comparison of both sides.
The voter is free to repost the arguments portion of the RFD without awarding conduct, or add additional explanation for the conduct point
************************************************************************
I intend to. Strangely, I had strongly suspected a debate upon whether to use actual aborted human fetuses as a mechanism of currency was a troll debate.
It’s absolutely no problem: this part of the rules can be pretty complex. Kudos for taking the time to try and understand them though: more people should be doing that!
Unfortunately that’s not what the rules say. The rules say:
“In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds >>>>or<<<<< if the voter also awards argument points”
The or is important. What this means is that you can award conduct points due to a forfeit if one side has forfeited half or more rounds - or if they haveforfieted a single round and the voter awards arguments too.
The rule is to prevent people going around and awarding a single easy point vote for conduct for a single forfeit - and forces them to additionally award argument points too.
Forfeit rounds - even a single one - are almost universally given a conduct penalty by almost all voters on all debates. Not making an argument and forcing your opponent to wait days is profoundly disrespectful, and should be penalized to discourage people from doing it.
I believeyour confusing the “Forfeit half rounds” exemption where you can award only conduct for a forfeit without explaining arguments.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Subjective
>Reason for Mod Action: Quoting Bsh1 from the voter’s last vote: The voter may not like moderation's ruling on the issue (which they are, of course, free to protest), but posting *less* reasoning in the RFD is not going to make the vote *more* sufficient. The voter fails to sufficiently justify the points they award. The voter has now voted 4 times with an insufficient RFD, despite being clearly told what must be done to make it sufficient: using the original RFD they cast + analyzing counterargument(s) from Con.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrFranklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.
>Reason for Decision: Con used arguments that were allegation such as point 1, wasn't racist-point 2, failed to meet the burden of proof like point 5 and 8, and last forgot to include the context in the last two points. NOT GOOD
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
The presents an incomplete consideration of the main arguments, does not assess or weigh counter arguments, or provide any explanation of weighting - thus this vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
So what I’m left with, is Trump retweeting white nationalists for no good reasons. Unfairly characterizing Mexican immigrants, unfairly using derogatory language about a Hispanic miss universe competitor he didn’t like, and asking why a Korean staff member didn’t work on North Korea issues.
I feel this all establishes a clear pattern of racial prejudice that pro cannot account for, there remain too many unanswered questions in too many cases to take pros side. Pros defence was stilted, and gave the impression of Kettle logic, with a multitude of justifications as to why each individual party of the overall onslaught was acceptable.
Worse, many of the arguments I’ve given to pro here are granted under an acceptable benefit of the doubt, with pro winning individual points not because he absolved Trump, but that there was sufficient doubt not to give it to con.
Overall, I am forced to now conclude whether I side with pro or con with regards whether this behaviour is racist or simply unbridled prejudice : your inconsiderate Grandpa, or a white supremacist. The dealbreaker here was the white supremacist tweets - as a result of these I am forced to concluded there is genuine racial animus by the arguments con presented over and above simple prejudice.
What im left with, is cons statement that Trump singling our a black person at a rally was racist, and asking “what do you have to lose”, to the black community. I feel these were a bit of a reach, while it’s true the latter could be construed as an overgeneralization, I don’t feel it’s enough on its own.
So, for the big one: the wall.
Con points out what Trump said about Mexicans, and illegal immigrants. The portrayal and context appears clearly talking about “Most”, with the “some I presume”, indicating the idea that he felt there were probably some good individuals present; there is little other way I can take this, and pro encouraging me to believe Trump didn’t mean what he said here is particularly bad.
What con went on to do, is argue that Illegal immigrants bring very low levels of crime - intimating that pros portrayal is massively inaccurate too. Pro even appears to concede it was not true, and trump used Mexicans to mean South American illegal immigration in general.
Con goes into explain the issues with drugs, that smugglers are mostly American, and to point out the absurdity of pros claims about any levels of crime being bad - the whole point was the misportrayal of Mexicans. However, pro appears to have pulled con away from this argument into a discussion about crime reduction, ignoring trumps wholesale misrepresentation of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Pro never addresses this point, after implicitly conceding it was a misrepresentation by agreeing with the figures that show Trump was wrong in his portrayal.
What con didn’t do, was any contrast: Pro gave me substantial reason to show me Trump was grossly overgeneralizing Mexican immigration, but not specifically a great reason why it was specific due to race. Though this is implicit.
Finally, the final point is pros objection to Trump being racist based on various non racist actions. I feel con very much hit the nail on the head with his murderer example.
This, and the issue with the policy adviser being asked if they should work on North Korea, were sourced articles - simply denying their validity is not enough: so I have to consider these as valid arguments.
I have to dismiss the footballers, and Muslim ban as counting for pro.
For white supremacists: con points out that Trump has repeatedly shared white supremacist posts, and highlights a multitude of examples. Pro demands specific tweets, and con generally obliges. Pros response here seems not to deny the retweets, but to argue that Trump can retweet prominent white nationalists accounts 6 times, or 5 times and “not know” they were. Pro also makes an excuse about the behaviour and motivation of one example - claiming it was the probable reason for the tweet was to fight islamaphobia or to expose.
Pros counters here feel a woefull mismatch of excuses and con appeared to very much have the upper hand - con argues that this is more than once or twice, and is a pattern; and most of what pro can offer is weak denials, and counter examples. I have to award this point to con, on these grounds: I can’t see how it’s reasonable to be retweeting white nationalist like this multiple times - and con simply did not do enough to even come close to mitigating this point.
With regards to the unite the right rally. I feel con does just enough here. By pointing out the full context of the quote it paints a portrait of a misquote. I don’t think this is necessarily true - but con did not point out any key mischaracterizations Trump made. Nor whether there is any racial connotations by minimizing one side as he did. That’s where con could have won this point, but pro did well to simply muddy the water enough.
So imo, this debate is a bit of a mess. The definitions are wishy washy, and neither side really engages in a systematic attempt to justify why actions as a whole makes the conclusion that Trump is it is not a racist justified or not.
Cons primary problem here is three fold: There was the selecting of a hugely restrictive definition of racism, there was the repeated assertion that a given action is racist without clear justification, and no broad argument about actions as a whole.
In my opinion, it is not enough for con to simply state that calling Warren Pocahontas is racist. Simply stating attacking football players for kneeling is racist is not enough on its own, either without a clear focus on the racial identity and a clearer outline of why the actions single out African Americans intentionally on the grounds of race. An argument is there to be made - but wasn’t here.
Similarly, con focused on the resulting Muslim ban - rather than the initial campaign language, the first couple of iterations, and any of the multitude of associated evidence about the choice of countries- massively eroded this point.
This allows pro to portray the actions as reasonable based on events and so with no clear description of what makes these actions specifically racist - the actions may be reasonable. I don’t believe pro is necessarily correct on any of these points - but without any detailed argument on what makes these acts specifically racist, I can’t assume they are.
Con recovers somewhat in the final rounds - a bit - pointing out the issue of miss housekeeping, that it is a racial slur due to the connotations and stigma of hispanics working as cleaners. Pros only real argument against this was such a slur was directed at the woman because he didn’t like her, and to deny across the board that these examples even happened - I don’t find this a compelling rebuttal at all.
*******************************************************************
Reported Vote: Speedrace Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 point to pro
>Reason for Decision: This is clearly a noob trap...I might get reported for this but whatever, you shouldn’t intentionally make debates such as this
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is considered a conceded debate. Conceded debates votes are normally unmoderated unless the balance of points are cast in favour of the conceding side. As the voter casts 7 points to the conceding side, this vote is considered invalid.
I would take this in a second if it was a 3 day argument period.
At this point I can only refer you back to the original vote, and my responses here.
I don’t think that focusing on the wrong thing proves they are brain washing people to hate white people even if I take that resolution broadly. It’s a non sequitor. The issues con raised indicates there is some legitimate grievance which renders your argument that they brainwash people because they focus on one legitimate grievance over more important issues (of which you mentioned several).
While the argument “they should be protesting xxx” or “its not the biggest problem” may be valid points - theyre not the resolution and proving one doesn’t prove the other.
I can really do more than I already have to explain why that’s the case, the example I gave in the vote, and below with charities are key examples that illustrate the logical error. If that still doesn’t make it clear why you didn’t show the resolution, I don’t think there’s much more I can say.
The logic is the same, for the same reasons. In both cases you can’t attribute malefeasance to the fact that one group doesn’t prioritize seemingly higher priority problems.
“Even if I buy” is voter speak - in this case it means that if I accept your arguments as true on its face - it doesn’t prove the resolution.
Specifically, the reason I said this was covered in my decision: if there are other more urgent or pressing issues faced by Blacks - this would show BLM is at best misguided, and focusing on the wrong issue: it doesn’t become an issue of “brain washing”, or teaching bias against whites unless you show malicious and deliberate intent.
It’s a bit like animal charities. A charity for taking in stray dogs and raising awareness of animal cruelty may not be the most pressing issue faced by humanity: but listing statistics about human starvation and the effects of war would not prove that the charity was brainwashing and biased against humans. The logic in these two cases are much the same.
While I very much appreciate the defence on a personal level: I think it’s important that everyone is free to ask questions and feel comfortable challenging decisions they feel are unfair - after all if I am not willing to defend decisions, I shouldnt be making them.
As a moderator I am expected and deserve an extra level of scrutiny; and I am happy to explain all my decisions in detail if necessary.
As I outlined in the decision the only thing wrong with Dr.Franklins vote is that he appears refers to another voters RfD in Leiu of justifying the conduct point he awarded. This is expressly prohibited by the CoC.
As a vote moderator, decisions are made not on the content or validity of the vote in question - but whether the voters adhere to a specific set of criteria spelled out in the CoC voting rules.
As a voter, I review the arguments made as they pertain to the resolution. In the case here I disagree with the validity of your logic as I think even if I accepted most of what you said as true - it wouldn’t prove the resolution, and so you didn’t uphold your side.
I believe your objection is explained by the following part of my vote:
“Even if I buy every specific thing pro says, he presents no evidence BLM brainwashes people to hate whites. At the very best, pros case is that BLM protesting police brutality and systemic racism is misguided, which falls way short of the rhetorical bar he set for himself.
Con correctly points out that the majority of these statistics raised are irrelevant; I side with him, though I think he could have elaborated on why better than he did.
It seems illogical to object to the validity of BLM protesting one particular type of injustice simply because there are more substantial matters at stake - this is prima facia absurd: For example, if I was punched in the face, and lost my job: it would be valid for me to be angry about both: as just because I object in public about one doesn’t mean I am disinterested about the other. Without pro doing more here, I cannot accept these branches of arguments.”
The last paragraph is most specifically addressing your concern - with an example.
I can only vote on the arguments, and resolution.
BLM “brainwashing people into hating whites” is an extreme resolution.
If BLM is misguided and is protesting the wrong aspects - it does not automatically mean that they are brain washing people into hating whites. One can be true without the other - and this is the key issue that PRO missed in the debate - effectively arguing around the resolution.
In the same way, arguing that Anti Malaria charities should focus efforts on improving sanitation and access to water doesn’t mean those charities are inherently dishonest or “brainwashing”, and it’s thay distinction pro missed; and was required to affirm.
RFD PT2.
Next round rebuttals were the same shit.Con responds-”Can't be helped. Parental issues has nothing to do with BLM. I think your white privilege card declined.”
Doesn’t address the facts nor backs up claims of white privilege. Another problem with Con is that he tries to paint Pro as using his “white privilege” but only uses on incident to back up his claim.
Pro responds:”I posted a study conducted by Harvard University and Urban Institute that showed nearly half of the black students drop out whereas only 7 to 8% of whites do so. Is that personal choice or white privilege? If it is white privilege,explain how. Oh,sorry,sorry,as you said in the comments,it's because the sky is blue. I get it. My bad.” Facts and Logic
Con also cherry-picked situations, such as the two cases and what-if situations.
Arguments-Pro
Sources-Tie
S&P-Tie
Conduct-Pro wins, Con used poor conduct as politely outlined by his vote,including
" You just want to pull out your white privilege card. "
" No, MLK was not a racist, but you are. "
" Again with the "what-if" scenarios. Nobody has time for that crap."
" Stop acting like you've never ever cussed in your life, bitch"
" Oh shut up you are the one with loose morals and loss of character "
RFD 1:
I have grouped Pros arguments
1.Black Lives Matter doesn’t address main black issues
I have grouped Cons arguments
1.BLM’s true purpose is as he explains:”it's a pro black movement. We aren't saying that black lives are more meaningful than everyone else's, we are saying black lives are just as meaningful as everyone else's. The BLM movement isn't about separation, segregation or disengagement. The BLM movement is about a positive resolution.”
Both sides made strong claims with facts and evidence. The deciding factor will be the rebuttals.
Case 1: Black issues in communities-King claims-”"dropping out of high school" and "growing up without a father" are stereotypes and simply irrelevant. Has nothing to do with BLM..”
Where Pro responds-”Black Lives Matter only cares BLACK LIVES LOST BY COP ACTION,NOT OTHER BLACK LIVES.” Pro is able to back it up with facts and sources like-”The issue of white fathers leaving their parents is unaddressed because it happens the least out of Blacks,Hispanics and whites. As of today,the rate of black fathers leaving their kids is 48.5%,those of Hispanics 26.3% and those of whites 18.3%. (US Census Bureau, “Living Arrangements of Children Under 18”: Tables –CH-2, CH-3, CH-4. 1960 – Present. U.S. Census Bureau July 1, 2012.)”and “The above link show studies conducted by Harvard University and Urban Institute which shows nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2002 failed to complete their education. Just 57% of African Americans and 60% of Latinos graduated in 2002, compared with 78% of whites and 84% of Asians. Now,this is just for only one state. One can only imagine about the rest of the country. People don't talk about whites on this issue,because of "white privilege". They don't because whites don't drop out of schools at the abysmal rate as blacks.”
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for conduct and arguments
>Reason for Decision: See above
>Reason for Mod Action: Arguments are sufficient.
Voters may not reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes. The voter appears to reference an existing vote for conduct points instead of placing an independent justification for conduct.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PinkFreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The Conduct award is judged to be border line; borderline votes are considered sufficient.
************************************************************************
But if people aren’t prevented from changing their gender, then what’s to stop people demanding that theIr age shouldn’t be changed each year. Everyone would start off with the age they are born with, and it should never be changed
Its no problem at all, a lot of people make a similar mistake :)
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DarthVader1 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: “The conduct point goes to Con since Pro forfeited not just one but two rounds.
The spelling and grammar was both reasonably good for both participants.
The sources were also convincing for both sides.
Pro's arguments were not impressive. I was particularly confused at the ballot tossing. Can he prove that the ballots tossed out all belonged to a specific group,or were just randomly thrown out?”
>Reason for Mod Action: First and foremost, the voter is illegible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. When they have done these things, they will regain the eligibility to vote.
Conduct is sufficient, but argument points are insufficiently justified.
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: “I would like to start off by thanking both opponents for this debate
POOR CONDUCT
Pro has FF 2 of the 4 rounds, that's poor conduct.
I'd like for other voters to also consider this when voting as well.”
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct is sufficient, but argument points are insufficiently justified.
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: kitty_slay_dragons // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources and S&G
>Reason for Decision: Pro had better grammar, sources and spelling.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is insufficient on all three counts; as well as the voter being ineligible to vote (the voter must have 2 non troll debates or 100 posts in order to vote)
The voter insufficiently justifies argument, sources, and grammar points. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps. To award sources points, even where one side did not use sources, the voter must (1) explain how the side which did use them used them well (how the sources impacted the debate), (2) directly evaluate at least one source from the debate, and (3) state that one side did not use sources (comparison). The voter completes just one of these steps. Finally, to award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G. The voter completes just one of these steps.
************************************************************************
What is important to understand here is that my vote moderation isn’t assessing the accuracy of the vote or whether it is “correct”, but whether it meets a set of predefined criteria. I can’t judge the vote based on whether it is a correct vote or not - if we did that, then the winners of the debate would likely be down whoever the vote moderators decide it is, which is not a good idea.
In terms of debate rules, while we consider the rules - for example if someone made a rule and a voter placed a vote referencing that rule, (ie “rules say forfeit means a loss of arguments), we take that into account; but we don’t typically enforce the rules (IE: we won’t remove votes that are deemed insufficient as per the rules posted in the debate definition).
In this case, I believe the voter meets the overall voting criteria both in terms of general precedent and the CoC- I could have called the argument points borderline also, but felt that they were just about sufficient- but felt that conduct was borderline.
While I completely understand the frustration, I believe the issues you raise fall under the issues of accuracy and whether the vote is correct, rather than whether it is sufficient: and unfortunately that is not the purpose of the moderation - and not something I can make a decision on.
There are a couple of things you can do here: you can ask Omar about the vote (though be respectful) - he may have missed these issues: and I have seen voters change their mind when they realize they have made a mistake.
Second, you can post the debate in the DebateArt forum “debate voting” thread to request more votes, which may very well counter the effect of one vote you think is bad.
Finally, you can most certainly appeal to Bsh1 or Virtuoso by tagging them in your response. I recognize that I am imperfect and capable of making mistakes - one of the other vote moderators may come to a different conclusion than me on this, or hold a different view. It’s worthwhile highlighting the area of the CoC voting standards you feel weren’t met by the vote.
Sorry I missed this one! I didn’t have it in my list.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 1 point for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The argument point is deemed sufficient. The conduct point is considered borderline - thus sufficient.
************************************************************************
Party rock is 1? Are you serious!
Party rock is an amazing tune!
You should be prohibited from ever voting on an EDM debate again!
The debate is unwinnable if the rules you’ve stated are enforced.
I reject the premise that it’s okay to create an unwinnable debate, for the purposes of scamming free points from someone who doesn’t read the fine print well enough to realize.
If your not willing to earn a win by offering good arguments; and simply by asserting arbitrary rules: then you should willing to eat a loss when those rules are rejected.
Or expressly argue that the rules of the debate should be rejected as they make the debate unfair or unreasonable.
If the debate has deliberately selected rules to make it unwinnable - it’s not a debate. As a voter I don’t accept or enforce rules that would prevent one side from winning before an argument has been posted. If your opponent makes an interesting semantic argument, I would accept it provided its good.
(see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/525 for some interesting precedents)
Some great songs there, thank you for inviting me too!
Thank you for the votes.
I personally prefer flexible and open styles of debate, with rebuttals, summaries and no new arguments being presented in the final round; but if you want to have summary only in the final round, I will be happy with that too.
Note: acceptance rounds are not needed in Dart, if you wanted to have three rounds of argument, I’m fine with that.
Rfd cont.
This shows you have now done it twice but this time added a straw-man.
Though the rebuttal was not perfect since PRO refuted more than was necessary, they still refuted the argument CON made on gay marriage.
CON repeated what they said initially and brought nothing new to the table, making their response irrelevant.
That right there is enough to show that PRO had the upperhand arguments wise since the title of the debate is: Omar thinks I have political beliefs based on religion: NAME ONE
Conduct wise CON made an ad hominem fallacy by calling PRO's argument on morality "a half-hearted argument" followed by repeating their morality standpoint rather than respond to the argument PRO made. PRO clearly demonstrated that in their subsequent round that CON made an ad hom to avoid refuting PRO's argument
>"Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion."
Vsp2019 RfD.
In terms of arguments, based on all I have read, I believe PRO has provided ample evidence that CON has political views based on religion. It seems very strange that CON rejects this since CON themselves say they are religious. PRO simply had to point out that CON had religious beliefs that they were serious about and PRO did it. CON rebutted by pointing out how their religious belief and their political were different
> "The government should not get into marriage. Stay out of it. If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine with me.
>As a Christian, however, I am against it.
Then CON goes on to say
>NOTE: I am not homophobic."
The last two statements are obvious contradictions. More importantly, CON's political views align with their religious ones. CON is still against same sex marriage politically however they hate the government more than two gay people getting married(This can be deduced directly from what they say in the three above statements above)
PRO refuted that argument by saying > I specifically targeted Civil Unions because that was part of my argument. You instead remove that as something you need to rebut and add your own argument. Basically making a straw-man of me so that it suits you. This is not how you debate. I was given the burden to show how Religion is the basis of your beliefs and used civil unions. Not gay marriage. For you to simply add your own argument as if that is allowed makes it seem like that you are unable to rebut my argument and will do anything to change the argument I made in order to suit yourself. For this reason I will not be rebutting his straw-man of my position instead await him to rebut my civil union claims. This debate was about me showing something. Not you changing what I was showing so it is easier for you to comment on. It is not about what you prefer. It is about you rebutting my claims. Since you did not do that with my first argument.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 1 point for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: see above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The argument point is borderline - thus sufficient.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
While the voter specifics some instances of misconduct; there was not an explanation of how this misconduct was excessive, nor was there a comparison of both sides.
The voter is free to repost the arguments portion of the RFD without awarding conduct, or add additional explanation for the conduct point
************************************************************************
To clarify first set is bsh, second is speed race
I intend to. Strangely, I had strongly suspected a debate upon whether to use actual aborted human fetuses as a mechanism of currency was a troll debate.
You may be able to delete it yourself, I’m not Auden I’d too much time has passed.
It’s absolutely no problem: this part of the rules can be pretty complex. Kudos for taking the time to try and understand them though: more people should be doing that!
Unfortunately that’s not what the rules say. The rules say:
“In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds >>>>or<<<<< if the voter also awards argument points”
The or is important. What this means is that you can award conduct points due to a forfeit if one side has forfeited half or more rounds - or if they haveforfieted a single round and the voter awards arguments too.
The rule is to prevent people going around and awarding a single easy point vote for conduct for a single forfeit - and forces them to additionally award argument points too.
Forfeit rounds - even a single one - are almost universally given a conduct penalty by almost all voters on all debates. Not making an argument and forcing your opponent to wait days is profoundly disrespectful, and should be penalized to discourage people from doing it.
I believeyour confusing the “Forfeit half rounds” exemption where you can award only conduct for a forfeit without explaining arguments.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Subjective
>Reason for Mod Action: Quoting Bsh1 from the voter’s last vote: The voter may not like moderation's ruling on the issue (which they are, of course, free to protest), but posting *less* reasoning in the RFD is not going to make the vote *more* sufficient. The voter fails to sufficiently justify the points they award. The voter has now voted 4 times with an insufficient RFD, despite being clearly told what must be done to make it sufficient: using the original RFD they cast + analyzing counterargument(s) from Con.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DrFranklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.
>Reason for Decision: Con used arguments that were allegation such as point 1, wasn't racist-point 2, failed to meet the burden of proof like point 5 and 8, and last forgot to include the context in the last two points. NOT GOOD
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
The presents an incomplete consideration of the main arguments, does not assess or weigh counter arguments, or provide any explanation of weighting - thus this vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
Only run a k if there is a genuine harm.
Bah damnit. Sorry.
Any chance I can correct my vote bsh?
So what I’m left with, is Trump retweeting white nationalists for no good reasons. Unfairly characterizing Mexican immigrants, unfairly using derogatory language about a Hispanic miss universe competitor he didn’t like, and asking why a Korean staff member didn’t work on North Korea issues.
I feel this all establishes a clear pattern of racial prejudice that pro cannot account for, there remain too many unanswered questions in too many cases to take pros side. Pros defence was stilted, and gave the impression of Kettle logic, with a multitude of justifications as to why each individual party of the overall onslaught was acceptable.
Worse, many of the arguments I’ve given to pro here are granted under an acceptable benefit of the doubt, with pro winning individual points not because he absolved Trump, but that there was sufficient doubt not to give it to con.
Overall, I am forced to now conclude whether I side with pro or con with regards whether this behaviour is racist or simply unbridled prejudice : your inconsiderate Grandpa, or a white supremacist. The dealbreaker here was the white supremacist tweets - as a result of these I am forced to concluded there is genuine racial animus by the arguments con presented over and above simple prejudice.
As a result: arguments to con.
What im left with, is cons statement that Trump singling our a black person at a rally was racist, and asking “what do you have to lose”, to the black community. I feel these were a bit of a reach, while it’s true the latter could be construed as an overgeneralization, I don’t feel it’s enough on its own.
So, for the big one: the wall.
Con points out what Trump said about Mexicans, and illegal immigrants. The portrayal and context appears clearly talking about “Most”, with the “some I presume”, indicating the idea that he felt there were probably some good individuals present; there is little other way I can take this, and pro encouraging me to believe Trump didn’t mean what he said here is particularly bad.
What con went on to do, is argue that Illegal immigrants bring very low levels of crime - intimating that pros portrayal is massively inaccurate too. Pro even appears to concede it was not true, and trump used Mexicans to mean South American illegal immigration in general.
Con goes into explain the issues with drugs, that smugglers are mostly American, and to point out the absurdity of pros claims about any levels of crime being bad - the whole point was the misportrayal of Mexicans. However, pro appears to have pulled con away from this argument into a discussion about crime reduction, ignoring trumps wholesale misrepresentation of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Pro never addresses this point, after implicitly conceding it was a misrepresentation by agreeing with the figures that show Trump was wrong in his portrayal.
What con didn’t do, was any contrast: Pro gave me substantial reason to show me Trump was grossly overgeneralizing Mexican immigration, but not specifically a great reason why it was specific due to race. Though this is implicit.
Finally, the final point is pros objection to Trump being racist based on various non racist actions. I feel con very much hit the nail on the head with his murderer example.
This, and the issue with the policy adviser being asked if they should work on North Korea, were sourced articles - simply denying their validity is not enough: so I have to consider these as valid arguments.
I have to dismiss the footballers, and Muslim ban as counting for pro.
For white supremacists: con points out that Trump has repeatedly shared white supremacist posts, and highlights a multitude of examples. Pro demands specific tweets, and con generally obliges. Pros response here seems not to deny the retweets, but to argue that Trump can retweet prominent white nationalists accounts 6 times, or 5 times and “not know” they were. Pro also makes an excuse about the behaviour and motivation of one example - claiming it was the probable reason for the tweet was to fight islamaphobia or to expose.
Pros counters here feel a woefull mismatch of excuses and con appeared to very much have the upper hand - con argues that this is more than once or twice, and is a pattern; and most of what pro can offer is weak denials, and counter examples. I have to award this point to con, on these grounds: I can’t see how it’s reasonable to be retweeting white nationalist like this multiple times - and con simply did not do enough to even come close to mitigating this point.
With regards to the unite the right rally. I feel con does just enough here. By pointing out the full context of the quote it paints a portrait of a misquote. I don’t think this is necessarily true - but con did not point out any key mischaracterizations Trump made. Nor whether there is any racial connotations by minimizing one side as he did. That’s where con could have won this point, but pro did well to simply muddy the water enough.
So imo, this debate is a bit of a mess. The definitions are wishy washy, and neither side really engages in a systematic attempt to justify why actions as a whole makes the conclusion that Trump is it is not a racist justified or not.
Cons primary problem here is three fold: There was the selecting of a hugely restrictive definition of racism, there was the repeated assertion that a given action is racist without clear justification, and no broad argument about actions as a whole.
In my opinion, it is not enough for con to simply state that calling Warren Pocahontas is racist. Simply stating attacking football players for kneeling is racist is not enough on its own, either without a clear focus on the racial identity and a clearer outline of why the actions single out African Americans intentionally on the grounds of race. An argument is there to be made - but wasn’t here.
Similarly, con focused on the resulting Muslim ban - rather than the initial campaign language, the first couple of iterations, and any of the multitude of associated evidence about the choice of countries- massively eroded this point.
This allows pro to portray the actions as reasonable based on events and so with no clear description of what makes these actions specifically racist - the actions may be reasonable. I don’t believe pro is necessarily correct on any of these points - but without any detailed argument on what makes these acts specifically racist, I can’t assume they are.
Con recovers somewhat in the final rounds - a bit - pointing out the issue of miss housekeeping, that it is a racial slur due to the connotations and stigma of hispanics working as cleaners. Pros only real argument against this was such a slur was directed at the woman because he didn’t like her, and to deny across the board that these examples even happened - I don’t find this a compelling rebuttal at all.
*******************************************************************
Reported Vote: Oromagi // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 point to pro for Arguments
>Reason for Decision: See vote.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to con for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: RFD in comments (below)
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Reported Vote: Speedrace Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 point to pro
>Reason for Decision: This is clearly a noob trap...I might get reported for this but whatever, you shouldn’t intentionally make debates such as this
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is considered a conceded debate. Conceded debates votes are normally unmoderated unless the balance of points are cast in favour of the conceding side. As the voter casts 7 points to the conceding side, this vote is considered invalid.
*******************************************************************